Long time since I've written one of these so just checking if this is ok for an lba?

I have not received a response to my emails dated: 16/05/2017, 26/05/2017 and 30/05/2017 regarding the Faulty Laptop I purchased from your website www.amazon.co.uk These emails explained the issue in detail and why I am due a refund.

I am therefore again requesting a full refund on the purchase price of £2,054.11 on the basis that the goods were not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Under the aforementioned act I must give the merchant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product. I have allowed you that right and the replacement product is not a like for like product, has developed similar faults and is missing a £605.99 Part so therefore I deem it a replacement not of merchantable quality. I have enclosed the proof of purchase and a copy of the pricing of the missing part and correspondence with customer service representatives promising a refund will be received.

I am further requesting a refund of £91.10 in shipping fees to return the laptop to you. This is written within your terms and conditions and I have enclosed a copy of that policy highlighting the relevant extract where Amazon are liable for this amount. I have attached an invoice from DHL showing the costs of returning the item to you.

I ask that you reply as soon as possible so that I know you have received this letter. If you don't agree to the refund, could you please then send me a detailed response saying why you don't agree.

To avoid taking court action, I am willing to use Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve this problem.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs.

I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraph 4 which sets out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the Practice Direction.
I look forward to your response and receiving payment.

Yours Sincerely,

Sorry forgot to ask, should I add that the basis for the LBA is to use the A-Z Guarantee? So add a paragraph like:

As the return was requested on 07/01/2017 (See attached appendix) this falls within the A-Z guarantee period of 90 days which is the basis for my claim against you. I have also enclosed copies of your Amazon Forum which shows Amazon have allowed claims under A-Z after 90 days. As you were aware of my intentions to return the product within 90 days my claim is valid.

Re: Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

Thanks, so something like this:

As you will be aware, you were notified of my intentions to return the product on 07/01/2017 and as such this falls within the 90 days as required by your A-Z Guarantee. This forms the basis of my claim against you.

Re: Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

Quick update.

Amazon have not responded to the lba sent in writing to their Head Office. The letter was sent tracked postage and they definitely received it. I allowed them the entire length of August to respond to show willingness for an amicable settlement.

Going to re-read this thread over the weekend and come back with a POC to submit to the courts this week. Also as they have not responded does that mean they failed to follow pre-action protocol?

Re: Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."
2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:
Extremely Poor Battery Life
Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)
Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections
Overheating
Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011
Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.00 (Exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:
Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3)
Consumer Rights Acticon 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 4)
Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5)
3.1 This would be considered an unfair term because this puts the purchaser in a position where they are forced to pay a high cost to return the Laptop to the United States of America where it is repaired. If a fault were to occur again then the purchaser would again be out of pocket unfairly.

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of 91.10 GBP. This forms part of the amount claimed in this case. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the 91.10 amount.

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per Particular of Claims Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (Exhibit 6).
This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing and the claimants wishes to return the laptop within 90 days. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7) as required and reasonably requested by the DHL Insurance Team.

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop (Exhibit 8). This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (Exhibt 7.1)

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at 605.99 RRP (Exhibit 8). The defendant was notified on discovery immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (Exhibit 9). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered a replacement part.

9. The defendants' customer service department promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under The Consumer Rights Act 2015

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises of a resolution and then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a
further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim. To explain this point further, Amazon refuse to honor a refund of 91.10 despite it being perfectly clear that Amazon would bare this cost and thus the matter resolves in the claimants favour.

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of Mediationicon with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:
The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 15 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)
The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)
All correspondence throughout my complaint ends with "Thank you for doing business with Amazon.co.uk" which clearly suggests that the defendant is the entity whom you are forming the contract with. (Exhibit 16).
Exhibit 17 shows the defendant makes such a claim that they are whom you are doing business with and forming the contract is also ended with the line: "Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit 18. The defendant provided a replacement product which
was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee to refund the faulty product as the claimant has fulfilled their legal requirements for allowing the defendant and opportunity to replace the laptop as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for a peroid longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the warranty to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of their terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the present date (572 days) at the daily rate of £0.47p making a total sum of £268.47 and continuing at the daily rate of £0.47

18. The Claimant has exhausted all possible options prior to litigation. A letter before action was sent on xx to the defendant which they received on xx (Exhibit 19). The Defendant did not respond to the Letter Before Action nor to any offers and proposals of mediation and therefore is in Breach of the Paragraph 4 of the Practice Directions, Civil Procedure Rules. It is with deep regret that the claimant must now file this claim in a final attempt to close the matter and end the dispute deadlock.

Re: Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

Claim has been submitted with the Courts. I had a small issue trying to file with the county court who refused to take the documentation from me and said it needed to be posted to Manchester. This is despite what the "Help with Fees" email and documents sent. So a wasted trip to the Court which wasn't ideal.

For anyone who reads this as a reference, this is the POC I filed. I decided not to include the SSD Drive in the costs as if this product was genuinely returned to the retailer I would not have the SSD drive to use later anyway.

Amazon did not respond to the lba but did acknowledge receipt of it. So I have also included this in the PoC.

IN THE Somewhere County Court CASE NUMBER: 123456789
BETWEEN:

NuclearShark (Claimant)

AND

Amazon UK Services Ltd. (Defendant)

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

1. "On 08/11/2015 the Claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of an ASUS ROG GL552VW Laptop, to be supplied by the defendant. The order was for the amount of £2054.11 GBP. This contract was entered into as a consumer and thus falls under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015."

2. Almost immediately the laptop developed various faults including but not limited to:
⦁ Extremely Poor Battery Life
⦁ Keys breaking off the keyboard (See Exhibit 1)
⦁ Losing connection to the Network and Internet via Wireless and Wired Connections
⦁ Overheating
⦁ Extremely poor Frames Per Second rates when compared to an older system built in 2011
⦁ Being supplied with a US Keyboard when the agents name implies they are UK based

3. On 07/01/2017 the claimant requested a return of the Laptop to the defendant. However this fell through as the defendants required the seller to pay a return shipping fee of $99.75 USD (Exhibit 2) This contradicts the defendants Policy:
⦁ Amazons Returns Policy (See Exhibit 3)
⦁ Consumer Rights Acticon 2015, Section 23 – Paragraph 2b (Exhibit 4)
⦁ Would be considered an Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5)
3.1 This would be considered an unfair term because this puts the purchaser in a position where they are forced to pay a high cost to return the Laptop to the United States of America where it is repaired. If a fault were to occur again then the purchaser would again be out of pocket unfairly.

4. After various disputes the claimant returned the laptop to the defendant using DHL on 05/10/2016 at the claimants expense of £91.10 GBP (Invoice Attached). This forms part of the amount claimed in this case. To date the defendant has not repaid this amount. The defendant has deliberately avoided answering why their policy does not apply and has made no effort to remedy the £91.10 GBP amount.

5. The defendant has failed to explain or provide an adequate reason as to why they are not enforcing their own terms and conditions as per Particular of Claims Point 3. The defendant maintains that this should have been raised within 90 days of incurring the expense (Exhibit 6).
This contradicts actual events as the defendant was notified by the claimant of the amount owing and the claimants wishes to return the laptop within 90 days. However to date the defendant has specifically ignored requests of repayment of the monies owed and provided no justification for why they feel they are not liable.

6. It is admitted that the laptop returned to the defendants agent was damaged in transit by DHL. DHL admitted liability and I began their complaints procedure without any delay. This complaint fell through as the Defendant failed to provide adequate documentation despite multiple requests (Exhibit 7) as required and reasonably requested by the DHL Insurance Team.

7. The defendant held the laptop for over 1 month and did not return the replacement until 11/12/2016. During this time the claimant requested several times the quote for repair of the damage caused by DHLs' negligence and a return date of the laptop (Exhibit 8). This was ignored by the defendant. It should be noted that the defendant asked the claimant how they wanted to proceed with the repair after the claimant had already requested the repair quote several times. (Exhibt 7.1)

8. It was discovered by the claimant on 04/02/2017 that the "Like for like replacement" was missing a Samsung 850 Evo 2TB SSD Drive valued at £605.99 GBP RRP (Exhibit 8). The defendant was notified on discovery immediately and to present date have not made any effort to respond to the request. A deadline for a response was given by the defendant which has already passed. (Exhibit 9). The defendant stocks the missing component and the claimant has competent knowledge to fit the part however the defendant has not offered a replacement part.

9. The defendants' customer service department promised a refund by no less than 3 separate representatives (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12) and later backtracked and provided a vague and generic response refusing to explain why I was not due a refund. This is a breach of contract as the oppertunity was given to the defendant by the claimant to repair as required under The Consumer Rights Act 2015

10. The claimant maintains the defendant has been deceitful by making assurances and promises of a resolution and then failing to deliver their obligations under the contract. This should be considered as a further Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Exhibit 5) and more specifically with reference to Section 18 of the aforementioned Exhibit.

11. The Claimant claims that the contract between the claimant and the defendant is further Unfair based on Amazon interpreting their own terms to suit their needs and explicitly, unilaterally defining the meaning of such terms. Exhibit 5: Unfair Term under Schedule 2, Part 1, Section 19. This should also be considered for Point 4 in the Particulars of Claim. To explain this point further, Amazon refuse to honor a refund of £91.10 GBP despite it being perfectly clear that Amazon would bare this cost and thus the matter resolves in the claimants favour.

12. The defendant maintains they act on as an intermediary between the customer and 3rd party supplier in the respect of only processing the payment and offer no level of Mediationicon with the seller. This is rejected by the claimant on the following basis:
⦁ The only way to originally contact the seller was via the defendants website (Exhibit 3 - Screenshots of Amazon Website Returns and Support Process)
⦁ The terms and conditions were not sufficiently clear enough to the customer that the defendant were not to be considered a supplier of goods. This should be considered as an Unfair Contract under Schedule 2, Part 1 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015. (Exhibit 5)
⦁ Exhibit 14 shows the defendant makes such a claim that they are whom you are doing business with and forming the contract is also ended with the line: "Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you and I am truly sorry that your experience of doing business with Amazon.co.uk on this occasion has been a negative one."

13. Despite numerous written and electronically written requests made by the Claimant to the Defendant the Defendant has failed to pay the said sum and remains indebted to the Claimant.

14: The claimant contacted Amazon on 07/01/2017 with the intentions to return the product under the 90 Day A-Z Guarantee. This is shown in Exhibit 15. The defendant provided a replacement product which was not a like for like and has since developed further faults. The claimant therefore seeks a claim against the defendant by way of it's 90 Day A-Z Guarantee to refund the faulty product as the claimant has fulfilled their legal requirements for allowing the defendant and opportunity to replace the laptop as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.

15. The Amazon A-Z 90 Day Returns Programme is no longer available to the claimant as the claimant had to give the defendant 1 opportunity to repair or replace the product as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This policy should still apply even after 90 days as the intention to repair was reported to the defendant by way of their Order Returns Website within this time limit 90 days. The defendant however claimed they were not liable for shipping costs and when they eventually had the laptop they held it for a peroid longer than 30 days. This delay caused wholly by the defendants actions allowed the warranty to expire. It should be noted that had the defendant followed their obligations in full without any delay, that an A-Z Guarantee could've realistically been submitted within 90 days.

16. It is unfair on the claimant for the defendant to invoke a clause of their terms and conditions on the claimant, yet a clause (specifically return shipping costs) that benefits the claimant is ignored and not followed by the defendant.

17. The Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of order being the 8th November 2015 to the date of the Letter Before Action being 01/08/2017 (633 days) at the daily rate of £0.45 GBP making a total sum of £284.85 GBP and continuing at the daily rate of £0.45 GBP The claimant is also due the same 8% per annum interest on the return delivery fee of £91.10 GBP from the date they incurred this expense being 04/10/2016 to the date of the Letter Before Action 01/08/2017 (302 days) at the daily rate of £0.02 GBP

18. The Claimant has exhausted all possible option prior to litigation. A Letter Before Action was sent on 01/08/2017 to the defendant which they received on 04/08/2017 (Exhibit 16). The Defendant did not respond to the Letter Before Action nor to any offers and proposals of mediation and therefore is in Breach of Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Directions for Pre Action Protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules (Exhibit 17). It is with deep regret that the claimant must now file this claim in a final attempt to close the matter and end the dispute deadlock.

Court issued a claim on 17th November 2017 with Date of Service for 22nd November 2017. The other party has until 6th December 2017 to Acknowledge Service or I can request Judgment by default on 7th December 2017.

Based on reading other posts on CAG, other forums, blogs and online information. It is my opinion this will go 1 of 4 ways.

1) Defend the Claim in full and take it to trial (Which I will push for should that be the case)
2) Settle the Claim or make an offer of settle for partial amount (probably without admission of liability)
3) Settle the Claim or make an offer to settle for partial amount with a gagging clause preventing me disclosing details and not admitting any liability (I won't accept this and will refuse any gagging order as condition of settlement)
4) Ignore the Claim and get judgment by default

There is of course the option that should this go in my favour that they will appeal.

Fingers crossed and will update as progress continues.

I should add for anyone who files by post with county court Money Claims in Salford that you must send them the following:

3x Signed Claimforms (1x to stamp and send back to you, 1x for the Court File and 1x for the defendant)
2x Copies of any particulars and exhibits (1x for the Court File and 1x for the defendant)

If you are claiming against more that 1 defendant in the same claim, then include 1x extra of each of the above.

This is not explained on the gov.uk at all ( https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money ) and should you send them just 1 claim form and particulars they will return them to you asking for duplicate copies. This is something I'd overlooked as I previously filed online where no such documents are needed. But in this case I applied under Help with Fees (Which didn't explain this either) where you have to file by post and made this rather rookie mistake.

Also don't take the claim forms with Help with Fees application to your local court. Send them to the Salford address (listed here: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money ) as the local courts won't take the documents from you and will instead give you a leaflet with where to send the documents and turn you away...

Again a rookie mistake and one I had simply overlooked as the previous N1 Claims I've filed have been online for small amounts.

Re: Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

ask for the Defendant's name to be amended, and
re-service of the claim form to be dispensed with at it was validly served at the correct address, and
ask for it ex parte (without a hearing)
On the front of the application notice type in the box asking what order you are seeking: "The Claimant respectfully requests that the Defendant's name be amended pursuant to CPR 17.1.(2) (b) an re-service of the Claim Form be dispensed with."

On the second page insert:

A claim was issued against the Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX in the XXXXXXX county court under claim number XXXXXXX for the recovery of monies owed.
Since that date the Defendant has changed their name and it is therefore incorrect on the Claim Form.
Therefore, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Claim Form be amended so that the Defendant's name reads "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" pursuant to CPR 17.1 (2)(b). An amended copy of the Claim Form is included in this application.

We respectfully request that the need for re-service of the amended Claim Form be dispensed with as the claim form was validly served on the Defendant's address.

Thanks again Andy. Just wanted to make sure I understood the process as it initially didn't make 100% sense to me at first.

Originally Posted by cjcregg

Why have you included exhibits at all? They're meant to go in your witness statement not POCs.

The courts requested all documents and evidence supporting the POC. I have a form of Autism and so take things very literally. So I may have misunderstood what the exact definition of that request was. Do you think it may be worth informing the court of this?

Originally Posted by Hammy1962

It is sad your relationship with your Parents broke down over a £600 Laptop.

There were other issues surrounding that. However that has since been resolved. That was the case at the time of writing, but is not so much the case now. The laptop in question is £2,100 + a return courier fee of £91 to the USA. Having read the thread to see where you got the £600 figure from, I think that is the replacement laptop that was sent back to me was missing a part which on it's own is valued at £600 and the laptop developed the same faults even with this missing component.

N244 will go in the post this weekend or early next week. I want to receive the response to AoS first so I know exactly what the name needs to be before sending off the N244.